Paris Climate Accord

[n david]

The POTUS withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Accord today.

So much fun reading the meltdown from the libs and world leaders.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by n david

The POTUS withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Accord today.

So much fun reading the meltdown from the libs and world leaders.

:happydanc e:thumbs up:laffa tu

[n david]

I honestly thought he might change his mind. Glad he didn't.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by n david

The POTUS withdrew the US from the Paris Climate Accord today.

So much fun reading the meltdown from the libs and world leaders.

I poured a concrete slab today.

Worked on it all day.

It was hot.

Therefore I was warming.

And sweating.

[Aquila]

Only time will tell if this was the right move or not.

[aegsm76]

If you ever wondered whether our political ruling class is being led around by the nose, the Paris Agreement proved that it was, and still is.
The Agreement would have lowered the projected rise in temperature by 0.086 degrees F by 2100.
Not even 1/10 of a degree.
link
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release...imate-promises
snippets
if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

If you ever wondered whether our political ruling class is being led around by the nose, the Paris Agreement proved that it was, and still is.
The Agreement would have lowered the projected rise in temperature by 0.086 degrees F by 2100.
Not even 1/10 of a degree.
link
http://www.lomborg.com/press-release...imate-promises
snippets
if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.

True. The Paris Accord was very modest.

[aegsm76]

Another good article
link
http://www.wnd.com/2017/06/climate-e...-paris-accord/
snippet
“He didn’t have to rely on the false science,” Ball told WND and Radio America. “He relied strictly on the economics of it, that it’s a very, very bad deal for the United States. In fact, it’s deliberately designed to punish the United States.”

[Aquila]

Interesting article:

Why The U.S. Withdrawing From The Paris Climate Agreement Would Be An Error Of Epic Proportions
By Ioannis Ioannou, an Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at London Business School.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lbsbusi.../#68a0a8824ffa

President Trump will later today announce his decision to remain or withdraw from the Paris climate accord. If he withdraws, the U.S. joins Syria and Nicaragua as the only other two countries that declined to join the landmark agreement. Withdrawing would be a tragic error of epic proportions and of unprecedented global consequence.

Climate change is real and so are its effects, despite what Trump and his 22 Republican senators might stubbornly, short-sightedly and nonsensically choose to believe. Indeed, that climate change is real and caused by human activity is no longer an issue up for debate. That time has long passed.

History will judge Trump’s administration harshly if he chooses to withdraw. Not only because of the grave implications of failing to tackle climate change on a global scale, but because of the diminished moral leadership America will have demonstrated to the world. Far-reaching adverse implications may appear across a range of foreign policy, national security and economic issues. In effect, the U.S. risks becoming an unreliable country run by an administration that explicitly prioritizes corporate greed, short-termism, isolationism and nepotism over science, reason, growth and global sustainable prosperity.





Sadly though, a decision to withdraw from the Paris accord would be consistent with the Trump administration’s overall attack on fundamental American values and institutions such as healthcare and human rights. It would be consistent with attempts to neutralize institutions like the Environmental Protection Agency that defend against environmental destruction or, more poignantly, that stand in the way of Trump’s and his associates’ financial interests.

Withdrawing from the Paris accord will not only fail to jumpstart the U.S. economy, as President Trump claims, but in fact, it will significantly undermine the U.S. economy’s competitiveness in the long term, reducing its potential to generate new and innovative businesses. Even in the short run, the economic effects will be detrimental: the U.S. is likely to lose access to the growing markets for renewable energy while competitors such as India, China and the EU grow their own presence.



The response to such a senseless act by the Trump administration should be a renewed and strengthened international commitment to combat climate change and the maintenance of a global climate governance regime that will be effective in keeping global warming below the critical 2 degrees Celsius. This should be done in close collaboration with U.S. states such as California and New York — who have shown extraordinary levels of leadership in their efforts to reduce carbon emissions — and with companies and corporate leaders that have genuinely committed their organisations to a sustainable future. The role of business cannot be underestimated, and it is already remarkable that firms like BlackRock, Shell, and Goldman Sachs, as well as prominent business leaders such as Elon Musk, have raised their voice in support of the Paris agreement. Business has also been instrumental in the energy sector by accelerating the transition towards clean energy through an incredible rate of innovation that has resulted in significant reductions in the cost of wind and solar energy. These trends and developments cannot, and will not, be reversed by a single man alone.

Moreover, countries and transnational institutions should seriously consider and carefully evaluate potential sanctions or economic countermeasures. A tax or import tariff on U.S. made products and services would account for carbon emissions used in the manufacturing process or, more ambitiously, incentivize leading companies to move parts of their business out of the U.S.

A withdrawal from the Paris agreement is a dangerous, irresponsible and immoral next step for an incapable administration and a President who is increasingly divorced from reality. As such, resistance to such policies through local action at grass-roots level, state intervention, visionary stewardship from the corporate world, and leadership by countries such as China, India, Germany and the EU, is imperative. The time to act is now. The stakes are high. Facts do matter. We all owe it to the future generations that will inhabit this planet. Let’s start building the post post-truth world today.

Ioannis Ioannou is Associate Professor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship at London Business School whose research interests spans sustainability and corporate social responsibility http://ioannou.us/

[Aquila]

Another interesting article:

Bailing On the Paris Climate Deal Would Be a Huge Security Risk
Rep. Raúl Grijalva and Michael Shank
Jun 01, 2017
U.S. Representative Grijalva (D-AZ) is a ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee. Shank is an adjunct assistant professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs.

The Trump Administration is poised to isolate itself from reality once again — this time by potentially withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate agreement. One-hundred-and-ninety-five countries thought it prudent to protect their populations from the consequences of climate change. President Trump — unlike any other head of state — seems willing to put Americans in harm’s way.

The security implications of backing out would be dire. The problem only worsens if you broaden your definition of security threat to include those releasing dangerous chemicals into the world. Every year, according to the International Energy Agency, 6.5 million people around the world die from fossil-fueled air pollution. That grim tally includes hundreds of thousands of Americans. This means more people are dying from fossil fuels than any other enemy out there. It’s easy to imagine the White House would lead the international community into immediate action against any terrorist group — or any other sort of adversary — that did what fossil fuels do to the American people.


From that perspective alone, President Trump should support the Paris agreement. But the enemies in this security situation — fossil fuels — are often owned and operated by those connected to the Trump Administration. While even former Exxon CEO and serving Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has encouraged the President to stay in the Paris agreement, Trump’s close contacts in the fossil-fuel industry nonetheless pose a formidable obstacle to the Paris process. Oil-producing Continental Resources’ head and former Trump campaign adviser Harold Hamm has called on the President to cancel the Paris treaty — as has coal giant Murray Energy’s chief executive Bob Murray, who stood beside the President while he signed an executive order seeking to dismantle the Obama Administration’s Clean Power Plan. Two of Trump’s energy advisors on his transition team, Michael McKenna and Thomas Pyle, have respectively served as lobbyists for Southern Company and Koch Industries, two companies that have opposed or obstructed the international climate consensus. The list goes on — and reaches all the way to Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, a longtime ally of the oil and gas industries.

America adapts all the time to face security challenges. The President should be dedicated to protecting the lives of citizens by supporting renewable energy.

The U.S. Defense Department has supported this strategy. In 2014, it produced a Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap. In it, the report’s authors wrote that climate change is a "threat multiplier because it has the potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today — from infectious disease to terrorism." The Pentagon has sided with the good guys in this fight — as some of the nation’s biggest purchasers of renewable energy — because they increase our security.

The Paris climate agreement attempts to address climate-security threats before they spiral out of control, to mitigate a clear and present danger to our planet. For those reasons — without even touching the devastating economic and diplomatic consequences that come from ignoring international consensus here, or the well over 20 million refugees migrating from countries devastated by climate change, such as Syria, Somalia and Yemen — it would be national security negligence for the White House to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

What should be on the forefront of the President’s agenda are the meaningful actions we can take to mitigate the impacts and prevent the loss of life. The Trump Administration should commit itself to determining how the U.S. should lead those efforts. Anything less means that Trump is putting Americans in peril.